Conquer Club

I don't make official truces, i like to keep my options open. I leave deterrents. stacks that can only attack them if they hit me first. I make threats...like this one Game 8228367


2011-02-18 15:54:59 - pearljamrox2: is there a reason you think we should be wasting out troops busting each other?
2011-02-18 15:56:23 - pearljamrox2: if you want blue to win we can end this now
2011-02-18 17:00:06 - vexx: ur right


hmm..maybe "threat" is the wrong word. More like "promise of mutual annihilation".


I think not breaking a truce when it means losing the game, is the same as throwing a game.

I usually don't make official truces...in fact, I'm not sure when the last time I made one was---because I too like to keep my options open.


--Andy

I really don't know.

I would like to think I would honour a truce. However, knowingly sitting there and doing nothinng would almost be like throwing a game, wouldn't it?

Army of GOD wrote:If it's a standard escalating game and I can see that someone I made a truce with

Now why would you ever, in any situation, make a truce in an escalating game?

Anyway, here's what I think in general: I try to never make truces I can't back out of when needed. I don't want to put myself in the situation where I'd have to break my word to win a game.

I also think it goes without saying and should be obvious to everyone that all truces are off the moment the game gets down to 2 players.

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:If it's a standard escalating game and I can see that someone I made a truce with

Now why would you ever, in any situation, make a truce in an escalating game?

Anyway, here's what I think in general: I try to never make truces I can't back out of when needed. I don't want to put myself in the situation where I'd have to break my word to win a game.

I also think it goes without saying and should be obvious to everyone that all truces are off the moment the game gets down to 2 players.

Because shut up. That's why.


































=D

Army of GOD wrote:Because shut up. That's why.

I know you are, but what am I?

The truce probably should have a stipulation of # of rounds before calling it off. Gives flexibility in addition to mutual benefit.

Simple answer: I would break the truce.

I couldn't care less about a negative rating (frankly I often encourage them), integrity is irrelevent when compared with a win in an individual (8 man) game and, in my view, if my opposition is banking on me holding a truce so they can win at the key point then they are at fault. One should never assume that a player will hold a truce when his very existence in a game is in question.

However...I don't make binding truces, so this situation doesn't come up and I would assume my regular opposition would consider me a player of some honour.

Yet I am happy to make clear that if I was in this situation I would break the truce without a moment's thought. I'm also happy to state that my opinion of a player wouldn't be negatively affected if I saw them do it in a game.

Do I lack integrity? Maybe. I know that I would break a truce if it benefited me in an individual game, but my self-awareness stops me from making truces in the first place.

Finally, if a player is skillful he shouldn't need to make binding truces in the early or mid. game. When I see them in my games my (private) response is "Ah, this is a situation I can exploit over time." And it usually is.

If I do end up making a truce I usually mention some sort of "ending period" in it.

EX: Pink, can we truce until blue is not getting more troops than us combined?

I think it's unintelligent to make a truce that binds you for the rest of the game. Truce's are eventually broken in every game anyway if you think about it. I also think if you were sure going to lose then the person you are truced with, if knowledgeable, should understand that. If I make a truce with someone in rounds previous and have noticed that the reason of the truce in the first place is no longer important I would actually prepare or expect for such attack.

I always justify myself by saying one's loss is another's gain. One person may hate me but the other loves me:)

Whenever I have made a truce there has always been an end agreed to. Naturally a truce meant to last till only us two players were left would be unfair to the other players. However, I have never broken any of these truces prematurely. In my opinion, doing so would be a bit slimy.

Mr Changsha wrote:Do I lack integrity? Maybe. I know that I would break a truce if it benefited me in an individual game, but my self-awareness stops me from making truces in the first place.

Finally, if a player is skillful he shouldn't need to make binding truces in the early or mid. game. When I see them in my games my (private) response is "Ah, this is a situation I can exploit over time." And it usually is.

Integrity is such an interesting word. I think in relation to world domination, one can argue you should be trying everything you can do (within the rules of course) to win the game, and if a truce is impeding one's ability to play to win, that could call into question the 'sincerity' and 'fair-dealing' of the game as whole---I want my opponents playing to beat me.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:
I want my opponents playing to beat me.


--Andy

...and I think it is wonderful that they do so with such unceasing regularity!

Mr Changsha wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:
I want my opponents playing to beat me.


--Andy

...and I think it is wonderful that they do so with such unceasing regularity!

Haha, yeah, I've been in a rough spot. Since 2006.


--Andy

Mr Changsha wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:
I want my opponents playing to beat me.


--Andy

...and I think it is wonderful that they do so with such unceasing regularity!

lol, touche!

I don't like diplomacy & truces cuz they give me headache.. this is why i avoid multiple opponents games as much as possible.

but if I happened to choose between breaking truce and risking my game, of course I'd f*ck all truces for the sake of victory